## SFRVE D DECEMBE R13 , 201 0 :;:FARTMENTO F • '''NSPORWIO N KKE I OPERATION S UNITE D STATE S DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTAfidl ^ ' 3 P2

- k 1 OFFIC EO FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . FEDERA L AVIATIO N ADMINISTRATION ,

Complainant , V . AMERICA N EAGL E AIRLINES , INC . Respondent . FAADOCKE TNo . CP09SW000 6 (Civi l Penalt yAction )

DM S No . FAA-2009-104 2 INITIA L DECISIO N O F ADMINISTRATIV E LA W JUDG E RICHAR D C . GOODWI N 

### Found ; 1 ) Responden t

violate d1 4 CF R§§119.5(1) , 121.367(c) , an d121.369(b ) a s charged ; an d 2) Responden t

i s assesse dacivi l penalty o f $20,000 . I . Back2roun d Thi s proceedin g stem s fro mmaintenanc e performe db y aPar t 14 5 repai r station , Eagl e Aviatio n Service s ("EAST') , o na nEmbrae r 14 5 aircraft , N684JW , durin g th e evenin g o

f Januar y 31 , 2008 . Th e allegation s o

f th e Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n("Complainant, " "FAA, " o r "th e agency" ) concer narequire dmaintenanc e tas k tha t EAS I assertedl y faile dt o perfor m(Tr . 22) . Th e charge s ar e roote di nth e agency' s conclusio ntha t Responden t

di dno t steriliz e th e lavator y wate r reservoi r

i naccordanc e wit h applicabl e directives . Th e FAA file daComplain t agains t th e ai r carrie r deeme d responsibl e for

th e maintenance , Par t

12 1 certificat e holde r

America nEagl e Airlines , Inc . of

DF WAirport , T X ("Respondent " o r "America nEagle" ) (seeExh . A-5) . Th e FAA' s Complaint , a s amended, ' allege s tha t Responden t

violate dthre e section s of

th e Federa l Aviatio nRegulation s ("FARs") : l ) sectio n119.5(1) , i ntha t America n Eagl e operate dcontrar y t o it s operation s specifications, ' 2 ) sectio n 121.367(c) , whic hrequire s acarrie r t o ensur e tha t

aircraf t release dt o servic e Complainant' s Motio

n t o Amen dth eComplain

t {se eTr. 11-21 ) is granted.followin g maintenanc e i s airworth y an dha s bee n properl y maintaine dfo r operation ! an d3 ) sectio n121.369(b) , whic hobligate dAmerica n Eagl e t o ensur e that , whe n performin g maintenance , it s manual s ha dbee n followed . Complainan t seek s acivi l penalt y o f

$47,400. 2 Responden t

dispute dth e charge s an dth e civi l penalt y proposed . A hearin g wa s hel di nArlington , T X o n Marc h24 , 2010 . I determine dtha t a writte n decisio n wa s reasonabl e an dappropriat e unde r th e circumstance s (Tr . 235) . Th e partie s file dpost-hearin g brief s an dth e matte r no w i s read y fo r

decision . I hol dtha t

th e fact s an dcircumstance s o f thi s cas e necessitat e finding s o f violation s o n al l count s an dwarran t a n assessmen t

agains t Responden t

o f $20,000 . II . Discussio n 

### A . Th e Testimon

y Tw o FA A inspector s testifie dfo r Complainant : Respondent' s principa l maintenanc e inspecto r ("PMI") , Mitchel l Wagster , an daviatio n safet y inspecto r Ronal dStilwel l (Tr . 27-28 , 37 , 85) . Respondent' s witnesse s wer e it s directo r o f maintenance , Josep hResnick , an dJeffre y Sands , wh o investigate dth e matte r (Tr . 170-71 , 209-10) . EAS I i s acontrac t

vendo r o f America n Eagl e a s wel l a s acertificate drepai r station . Ther e i s Uttl e questio n tha t America n Eagl e bear s lega l responsibilit y fo r EAST' S act s an domissions , an dI s o find{seeTr . 162) . EAS I ha dschedule dmaintenanc e fo r th e Embrae r

14 5 aircraf t

fo r th e evenin g o f

Januar y 31 , 2008 , a t

it s maintenanc e facilit y i n Abilene , T X (Tr . 153 , 161 , 173) . Performanc e wa s governe dultimatel y b y th e aircraft' s operation s specification s ("op specs") . Th e Embraer' s o p spec s requir e Responden t t o maintai n th e aircraf t

throug hit s continuou s airworthines s maintenanc e progra m("CAMP") . CAMP , i n turn , obligate s us e o f th e aircraft' s Engineerin g Specificatio n Maintenanc e Manua l ("ESM" ) (Tr . 29-30 , 35-36 , 128 ; Exhs . A-1 , p . 1 , an dA-2 , p . l) . Th e ES M mandate daso-caUe dPhas e 3 A chec k a t state dintervals . Encompasse dwithi n th e 3 A chec k wa s anothe r

check , know n a s aPhas e l A chec k (Exh . C-13 ; Tr . 121-22 , 193) . Phas e l A task s wer e t o b e performe da t interval s n o longe r

tha n ever y 50 0 fligh t hour s (Exh . A-1 , p . 3 ; Exhs . C-6 , C-7 ; Tr . 32-33 , 202) . A Phas e l A task , th e requiremen t

t o steriliz e th e aircraft' s potabl e wate r reservoir , i s wha t

concern s u s today . Th e tas k

a t issu e wa s governe db y awor k car dwit hth e identifie r 12-200-00 , T R07-7 7 (Exh . C-5 ; se e alsoExhs . C-1 , p . i ; Exh . C-7 ; Tr . 99-100 , 102-05) . T R ^Se e 4 9 U.S.C . §46301 ; Tr . 23 . Thi s matte r ha dbee n consolidatedwit

hanothe r i n whic hAmerica n Eagle als o ha dbee nthe Respondent, FA

A Docke t No . CP09SW000

7 ("0007") . Cas e 000

7 wa s dismissedby Orde r o f Dismissa l serve dMarc h19 , 2010 .stand s fo r "temporar y revision; " th e wor k car d(als o know n a s atas k card ) i n effec t o n Januar y 31 , 200 8 ha dbee n revise do n Decembe r 30 , 200 7 (Exh . C-3 ; Tr . 93) . A tas k car ddirect s ho w wor k shoul db e performed . Joh n Elli s Nanney , 200 2 W L 31133002 , EA-499 6 (NTS B Septembe r 18 , 2002) . Tas k

car d12-200-00 , T R07-7 7 directe dResponden t

t o steriliz e th e potabl e wate r re.servoi r

pe r engineerin g orde r EM-3800-007R 4 Par t

B (Exhs . C-3 , C-4 ; Exh . C-1 , p . l ; Exh . R-3 , p . l ; Tr . 97) . A n engineerin g order , o r EG , spell s ou t

th e proces s b y whic hatas k i s t o b e complete d(Tr . 95) . E GEM-3800-007R 4 Par t B describe dth e tas k

a s "sampling , testing , deactivating , cleaning , sanitizing , r e testing , an dre-activatin g th e potabl e wate r syste mfo r

positiv e results." ^ Th e procedur e i s designe dt o neutraliz e th e | | contaminant s i n th e potabl e wate r syste mb y placin g achemica l mi x int o th e potabl e { | wate r reservoi r

fo r acertai n perio do f

tim e (Tr . 41-42 , 75 , 79 ; Exh . C-1 , p . 3) . Th e i f mi x the n i s flushe dou t o f th e syste m(Tr . 79) . Th e fina l ste p i s t o servic e th e i | lavator y wit hwate r (Tr . 81) . Th e E Gestimate d8-1 2 "labo r hours " fo r

th e task , j I whil e th e "estimate dtime " —th e tim e neede dt o actuall y complet e th e sterilizatio n \ : proces s - wa s projecte da t 16-2 4 hour s (Exh . C-4 , pp . 1 , 9 (labo r hours) ; Exh . C-4 , p . \ \1 (estimate dtime) ; Tr . 79 , 98) . \'\Th e aircraf t wa s suppose dt o b e ou t o f servic e fo r

schedule dovernigh t maintenanc e only . Whe n th e mechani c (als o know n a s amaintenanc e technician ) : r charge dwit hperformin g th e sterilizatio n tas k realize dtha t

th e E Gestimate d1 6 t o 2 4 hour s fo r

completion , h e informe dhi s cre w chief . EAS I di dno t hav e enoug htim e t o complet e th e tas k

an dreleas e th e aircraf t th e nex t

mornin g a s scheduled . Th e cre w chie f

the ndirecte dth e mechani c t o perfor ma"shorter " versio n o f th e tas k (Tr . 41-42 , 173-74 , 196) . Th e shorte r

versio n addresse dsterilizatio n o f th e potabl e wate r

i n th e lavator y syste mbefor e th e Decembe r 30 , 200 7 revision . I t

i s spelle dou t

i n awor k I car dwit hth e sam e initia l identifie r a s th e "longer, " post-revisio n version , 12-200-00 . ; Bot hth e shorte r an dth e longe r

versio n appeare do n EASI' s we b site." * Th e repai r

station' s cre w chie f

i n Abilen e ha dchecke dth e Phas e l A we b pag e an dha dfoun dth e wor k car dwhic hha dbee n vali dprio r t o th e T R07-7 7 revision , i.e . th e shorte r

version . Th e longer , correc t versio n wa s o n th e Phas e 3 A we b page . Th e revisio n ha dadde darequiremen t o f completio n pe r

th e EG . Th e ne w I requiremen t lengthene dth e estimate dlabo r hour s fo r

completio n o f

th e sterilizatio n ! proces s fro m1. 5 hour s (Exh . C-7 ; Tr . 105 ) t o 8-1 2 hour s (Exh s C-4 , C-8 ; Tr . 164) .

Bu t th e cre w chie f

ha dfaile dt o addres s thi s discrepancy . I n th e word s o f Complainant' s witnes s inspecto r Stilwell , th e cre w chie f ha d"mad e ajudgmen t caU " an dtol dth e maintenanc e technicia n tha t h e nee dno t

compl y wit hth e EG . Th e technicia nwa s tol dt o perfor mth e shorte r versio n (Exh . C-1 , p . 3 ; Exh . R-3 ; se e Exh .

^ Exh . C-4 , p . 1 . "R4 " refers t o the revision number ; the engineering orde r ha dlast bee n revisedo n Septembe r 26 , 2007 . Par

t B i s the section covering sterilizatio n o f the potabl e wate

r system . Exh . C-4 . * Exhs . C- 2 an

dR-2 ; Tr . 78-79,176-77,198 , 223 . The partie s agree tha t Exhibit s C-2 an

dR-2 , eac h representing ablan

k "shorte r version " o

f wor k car d12-200-00 , ar

e identical . Tr . 81-82 , 91 .C- 2 (pre-revisio n wor k card) ; Tr . 144 , 176 , andExh . C- 3 (post-revisio n wor k card) ; Tr . 93 , 144) . Th e shorte r version , o f

course , ha dse t

ou t aprocedur e whic hwa s ou t o f dat e (Tr . 76-77 , 173) . I t wa s no t th e tas k

car di n forc e fo r

maintenanc e o f

th e potabl e wate r

reservoi r

(Tr . 79 , 81-82 , 158) . Th e mechanic , accordin g t o Respondent , the n performe dth e shorte r version . Bu t

h e di dno t

sig n of f o n i t (Tr . 223) . H e di d sig n of f o n anon-routin e wor k car d(Exh . C-9) . Th e tas k describe db y th e non-routin e wor k car dconstitute s hookin g u p th e tan k an dfillin g i t

wit hwater . I t

doe s no t

includ e sterilizatio n (Exhs . C- 9 an dC-IO ; Tr . 117) . Th e tas k

i s normall y accomplishe dfollowin g completio n o f th e requirement s o f

th e phas e chec k

(Tr . 183) . Performanc e i s t o ensur e tha t th e tan k

i s ful l whe n returne dt o revenu e servic e (Tr . 181-83) . Th e i;ion-routin e wor k card , date dFebruar y 1 , 2008 , state s tha t th e potabl e wate r

wa s "serviced " i n accordanc e wit hEmbraer' s Aircraft Maintenanc e Manua l ("AMM") , tas k 12-15-0 1 (Exh . C-9 ; Tr . 114) . Th e reference dAM M sectio n describe s th e tas k a s "wate r

tan k - servicing " (Exh . C-IO) . Bu t

th e AM M sectio n neithe r i s reference di n th e operativ e E Gno r appear s i nth e ES M (Exhs . C-1 , p . 3 ; Exhs . C-4 , C-5 , C-9 , an dC-IO ; Exh . R-3 ; Tr . 109-10 , 114-17 , 149) . Th e car dnote dtha t th e mechani c ha duse d. 5 hour s fo r th e tas k (Exh . C-9 ; Tr . 182-83) . Th e aircraf t

wa s release dth e mornin g afte r maintenanc e performanc e ha d begun , Februar y 1 , 200 8 (Exh . C-1 , p . 3 ; Tr . 42 , 175 , 189) . Th e carrie r electe dt o defe r th e potabl e wate r

syste mpe r

Minimu mEquipmen t Lis t ("MEL" ) 38-0 1 prio r

t o resumin g revenu e flight s (Exh . C-1 , pp . 2 , 3 ; Exh . C-16 ; Tr . 46 , 125 , 163-64 , 175 , 198-99) . Thi s actio n deactivate dth e system . Th e wate r wa s draine dou t

o f th e lavator y sin k

(Tr . 189 , 199) . Responden t notifie dth e agenc y o f th e deferra l (Tr . 71

- 74) . Th e potabl e wate r syste mremaine ddeferre dpe r th e ME Lfo r

eleve n day s (Exh . A-5 ; Exh . C-14 ; Tr . 124-27 , 201) . Followin g tha t interval , o n Februar y 12 , 2008 , a t DFW , EAS I signe dof f sterilizatio n th e potabl e wate r syste maccordin g t o th e tas k car dthe n i neffect . Th e repai r statio n cleare dth e ME L(Exh . C-14 ; Tr . 127 , 201-02) . America n Eagl e ha dcomplete dfifty-thre e flight s durin g th e intervenin g perio d(Tr . 118 ; Exh . C-ll) . Responden t

official s ha dlearne do f th e situatio n th e mornin g o f Februar y 1 , 2008 , whe n th e aircraf t eithe r wa s o n it s wa y t o DF Wo r ha dalread y arrive d(Exh . C-1 , p . 3 ; Tr . 55) . Th e carrie r ha dnotifie dth e FA A unde r th e agency' s Voluntar y Disclosur e Reportin g Progra m("VDRP" ) (Exh . C-i ; Tr . 37 , 72 , 175) . Th e VDR P permit s certificat e holder s Kk e Responden t t o avoi dcivi l penaltie s fo r "covere d instance s o f

noncompliance " i f

th e agenc y accept s it s petition . Certai n condition s mus t b e me t t o ensur e acceptance . A s spelle dou t i n th e documen t

implementin g an dsettin g ou t

revise dterm s o f

th e VDRP , Advisor y Circula r ("AC" ) 00-58A , thes e condition s include : l ) th e apparen t violatio n mus t

hav e bee n reporte dimmediatel y followin g detectio nan dbefor e th e agenc y ha s learne do f i t b y othe r

means ; 2 ) th e apparen t violatio n mus t

hav e bee n inadvertent ; an d3 ) th e carrie r mus t hav e take n "immediat e action , satisfactor y t o th e FAA , .. . t o terminat e th e conduc t tha t resulte di nth e apparen t violation. " (Exh . A-3 , p . 3 ; Tr . 38) . I f th e carrier' s disclosur e meet s wit hal l th e condition s an di s otherwis e satisfactor y t o th e FAA , th eapparen t violatio ni s close dwit halette r o f correctio n instea do f

civi l penalt y actio n (Exh . A-3 , p . 3 ; Tr . 43) . America n Eagle' s disclosur e o f Februar y 1 , 2008 , know n a s a n Initia l Notificatio nan dconsidere db y th e agenc y t o b e prehminar y i n nature , state dtha t i t ha dfaile dt o complet e aschedule dmaintenanc e tas k - - sterilizin g th e Embrae r aircraft' s potabl e wate r reservoi r

(Tr . 36-37 , 41 ; Exh . C-l) . A skeptica l PM I Wagste r accepte dRespondent' s disclosur e fo r th e moment . H e awaite dth e carrier' s writte n repor t befor e makin g a"ful l decision " o n whethe r t o mak e th e agency' s acceptanc e permanen t

(Tr . 39 , 63-64) . Th e carrie r

submitte dit s ful l writte n repor t tw o an dahal f

month s later , o n Apri l 14 , 2008. ^ T o th e repor t wer e attache dtw o wor k card s - th e "shorter " (pre

revision ) version , 12-200-00 , an dth e revised , "longer " version , 12-200-0 0 T R07-7 7 (Exhs . C- 2 an dC-3) . Neithe r ha dbee n signe d(Tr . 88-89 , 92-93 ; Exhs . C-1 , C-2 , C-3 , an dR-2) . No r

wa s th e non-routin e wor k card , whic hha dbee n signe dunde r dat e o f Februar y 1 , 2008 , attache d(Tr . 110 , 113 , 116 ; seeExh . C-9) . Th e carrier' s repor t i n fac t neve r mentione dth e non-routin e wor k car d(Tr . 113) . I n lat e Apri l 2008 , afte r aforma l reques t

t o America n Eagle , inspecto r Stilwel l receive dacop y o f asigne dwor k

car d(Tr . 94-95 , 106-09) . I t wa s no t th e non-routin e wor k

card , however . I t

wa s tas k

car d12-200-00 , T R07-7 7 - th e so calle dlonge r

versio n(Exh . C-8) . Thi s card , o f course , mandate dsteriUzatio n o f th e potabl e wate r

reservoi r

pe r th e reference dEG , bu t EAS I ha dno t

accomplishe dtha t tas k (Exh . C-8 ; Tr . 108 , 143 , 178 ; s'e e Initia l Decisio n ("I.D.") , p . 2) . America n Eagle' s VDR Prepor t

i nfac t ha dacknowledge dtha t th e signof

f ha dbee n inappropriat e an dtha t th e tas k

ha dno t bee n performed. ^ G nMa y 1 , 2008 , followin g revie w o f Respondent' s writte n VDR Prepor t an d associate dmaterials , PM I Wagste r rescinde dhi s conditiona l acceptanc e (Tr . 40 , 52

- 53 ; Exh . A-5 ; Exh . C-1 , p . 8) . I n hi s view , th e potabl e wate r reservoi r

shoul dhav e bee nsteriUze dpe r

th e E Ga t

th e tim e th e Phas e 1A/3 A chec k ha dbee n performe d (Exh . C-1 , p . 8 ; Tr . 75 , 77-78) . Tw o o f th e condition s fo r

VDR Pacceptance , h e said , ha dno t bee nmet : one , America n Eagl e ha dno t take n actio n t o rectif

y th e noncompUanc e a s soo n a s the y learne do f it ; an dtwo , th e noncomplianc e ha dno t bee ninadverten t

(Tr . 43-46 , 70-71) . Inspecto r Wagste r

conclude dthat , afte r Responden t

ha dlearne do f

th e failur e t o perfor mth e require dtask , i t ha dmad e a "consciou s decisio nt o postpone " immediat e actio n (Tr . 46) . Thi s conduc t foreclose da findin g o f

inadvertence . Th e carrie r shoul dhav e remove dth e aircraf t fro mservic e upo n arriva l a t

DF Wo n Februar y 1 , 2008 , Wagste r said . A t

DF WResponden t

ha d

' Exh . C-1 , p . 2 ; Tr . 40 . Th e EAS I technicia

n i n hi s individua

l capacit y als o submittedarepor

t t o th e FA A pursuan t t o di e agency' s Aviation Safet y Action Progra

m("ASAP") , aprogra

mparalleling th

e VDR Pfo r mechanic s an

dothe r ai r carrie r employees . Tr . 68-69 , 82 . EASI , the repai r station , submittedaVDR

Pas well . Tr . 68 . ^ Tr . 108 , 207 . Th

e VDR Pstates : "On 2/1/0 8 aMaintenanc e Technicia n a t EAS I incon-ectl

y signedof

f completion o

f wor k car d12-200-00 withou

t having accomplishedE

O EM-3800-007 Par

t B. " Exh . C-1 , p . 1 .th e i-esource s t o effec t th e task , an dwa s obligate dt o accomplis hth e maintenanc e the n(Tr . 45-46 , 53-54) . B . Argument s o f

th e Partie s Th e nu b o f

th e inspectors ' - an dth e agency' s - - complain t i n thi s matte r

i s . tha t EASI' s maintenanc e technicia n ha dfaile dt o complet e aschedule dmaintenanc e task . Th e mechani c ha dno t performe dth e sterilizatio n o f th e potabl e wate r reservoi r pe r th e E Ga s require d(Exh . C-l ; Tr . 41 , 70 , 73-74 , 143 , 158-59 , 206-07) . Th e agenc y assert s tha t th e technicia n faile dt o perfor meithe r th e "shorter " (albei t incorrect ) versio n o r

th e "longer " version , ie . eithe r th e pre - o r

post-T R07-7 7 tas k card . I n suppor t

o f Complainant' s conclusion , inspecto r Stilwel l testifie dtha t a Responden t

officia l ha dtol dhi mtha t neithe r tas k car dha dbee n accomplishe d(Tr . 147-48 , 160) . Th e fac t

tha t th e "shorter " tas k

car dwa s unsigne dals o showed , inspecto r

Stilwel l said , tha t

n o sterilizatio n ha dbee n performe dunde r tha t car d(Tr . 143 , 145 , 160) . Complainan t hold s tha t

maintenanc e ha dbee n performe dpe r th e non-routin e wor k

car dfo r . 5 hours . I n support , i t state s tha t

th e agenc y ha d receive da n e-mai l showin g tha t th e non-routin e wor k car dha dbee n completed . An di t wa s tha t

car dwhic hEAS I ha dsigned . EASI , Complainan t concludes , ha d don e nothin g mor e th e nigh t o f Januar y 31 , 200 8 tha n accompHs hth e tas k spelle d ou t b y th e non-routin e wor k card , i.e . servic e th e potabl e wate r reservoi r

wit hwate r (Tr . 67 , 76 , 143-44) . Respondent , b y contrast , maintaine dtha t EAS I i n fac t

ha daccomplishe d sterilizatio no f

th e potabl e wate r

reservoi r

- - althoug hno t

unde r th e term s o f

th e EG . Responden t

ha dperforme dsterilizatio n unde r th e "short, " o r

pre-revision , versio n o f

th e wor k

car d(Exh . C-2) , accordin g t o it s witnesses , maintenanc e directo r Josep hResnic k

an dinvestigato r

Jeffre y Sands . Th e card , a s noted , ha dno t bee n signed ; bu t

Resnic k testifie dtha t

th e maintenanc e technicia n ha dmistakenl y signe d of f o n th e "long, " post-revisio n wor k car d- th e car dprovide dinspecto r Stilwel l i n lat e Apri l 200 8 (Tr . 178 , 187-89 , 195 ; Exh . C-8 ; I.D. , p . 5) . Th e mechanic' s signof f o n th e lon g version , Resnic k said , wa s i n error , bu t i t showe dtha t

th e mechani c ha d performe dth e shor t

version . EAS I admittedl y ha dno t performe dth e tas k

pe r th e EG . Bu t Resnic k maintaine dtha t

th e mechani c ha daccomplishe dsterilizatio n (Tr . 179 , 189 ; Exh . C-8) . Mr . Resnic k

note dtha t

th e technician' s individua l ASA Pha dasserte dtha t h e ha dperforme dth e sterilizatio n pe r th e shor t

version . Thi s document , moreover , ha dbee n accepte db y th e FA A (Tr . 177 ; seen . 5 , p . 5) . An dth e notatio n i n th e carrier' s maintenanc e lo g (whic hha drecorde dth e ME Ldeferral ) statin g tha t th e "la v sin k wate r need s t o b e cleaned " (C-16 ) i s consisten t wit htha t

conclusion , Resnic k added ; th e lo g suggest s tha t EASI , knowin g tha t

i t ha dno t performe d sterilizatio npe r

th e EG , wa s indicatin g b y tha t notatio n tha t

i t woul dhav e t o resteriliz e unde r

th e E Gterm s (Tr . 189-91) . Resnic k furthe r asserte dtha t

EASI' s ow nself-disclosur e state dtha t th e shor t

versio n ha dbee n performe d(Tr . 177) .Sterilization , Resnic k als o testified , ha dbee n performe dconsisten t wit hth e Phas e l A maste r

recor dcar d(Tr . 155) . Th e maste r recor dcard , asummar y o f task s require dever y 50 0 fligh t hour s unde r

aPhas e l A check , indicate s tha t th e tim e reserve dfo r

wor k unde r tas k car dno . 12-200-0 0 —"SV C steriliz e potabl e wate r reservoir " - - i s 1. 5 labo r hours . Tha t

i s th e tim e allotte dfo r completio n o f

th e shorte r versio n (Exh . C-7 ; Tr . 105 , 146 , 180-81) . EAS I als o ha dservice dth e potabl d syste mpe r

th e non-routin e recor dcard , Resnic k said . Th e latte r

tas k ensure dtha t th e wate r

tan k wa s ful l befor e th e aircraf t resume dservic e (Tr . 181-83 ; Exh . C-9) . Th e . 5 labo r

hour s hste do n th e non-routin e wor k car dfo r servicin g th e syste mcoul d hav e bee n expande dthroug hpaperwor k t o 1. 5 hours , h e sai d(Exhs . C-9 , C-10 ; Tr . 113 , 147 , 155-56) . Respondent' s secon dwitness , Mr . Sands , supporte dMr . Resnick' s testimony . Sand s testifie dtha t

th e EAS I mechani c assigne dth e sterilizatio n tas k ha dbee n confuse db y th e amoun t o f tim e necessar y t o accomplis hi t (Tr . 215) . Th e pre revisio nmetho d"wa s stil l availabl e fo r review, " Sand s stated , bu t th e mechanic' s signof f o nth e wor k

car dincorporatin g th e temporar y revisio n wa s "inappropriat e fo r th e wor k h e did " (Tr . 215-16) . Sand s acknowledge dtha t th e mechani c di dno t perfor mth e tas k

pe r th e E G(Tr . 221-22) . Bu t th e mechani c di dperfor m sterilizatio n b y th e previou s method , h e maintaine d(Tr . 216-17) . Th e entr y indicatin g tha t

th e mechani c ha dtake n 1. 5 hour s t o perfor mi t i s "consisten t

wit h th e earlie r

metho do f

accomphshin g th e sterilization " (Tr . 217) . Th e mechani c ha d als o signe da"separat e non-routin e wor k car dfo r servicin g apotabl e wate r system " an d"that' s appropriate, " Sand s testifie d(Tr . 217) . Finally , Sand s testifie dtha t h e "wa s tol d[b y EAS I directo r o f qualit y control ] tha t

that' s wha t

th e mechani c sai dh e did " (Tr . 218-19) . C . Finding s an dConclusion s I fin dth e violations . I t i s no t dispute dtha t

sterilizatio n o f

th e potabl e wate r

syste mpe r

E GEM

3800-007R 4 Par t

B ha dno t

bee n performed . Eac hResponden t witnes s acknowledge di t

(Tr . 17 9 (Resnick) ; Tr . 221-2 2 (Sands)) . Indeed , th e admitte d nonperformanc e wa s th e basi s fo r America n Eagle' s VDR P(Exh . C-i ; I.D. , p . 5 an d n . 6 o n p . 5) . Thu s Complainant' s assertio n underlyin g th e charge s wa s proved- ' tha t America n Eagle , throug hit s repai r statio n EASI , ha dfaile do n th e evenin g o f Januar y 31 , 200 8 t o accomplis hsteriUzatio n o f th e Embrae r

145' s potabl e wate r reservoi r i n accordanc e wit hth e tas k car dthe n i n effect . I t als o i s undispute dtha t th e carrie r

operate dfifty-three flight s befor e performin g th e maintenanc e i n accordanc e wit hth e Embraer' s ESM . A s such , I fin dan dconclud e tha t America n Eagl e violate deac ho f th e agency' s allegations . Betwee n Februar y 1 an d12 , 2008 , Responden t operate dth e Embrae r 14 5 aircraf t

contrar y t o it s operation s specifications . Th e o p spec s ha d obligate dth e carrie r

t o follo w th e ES M terms . B y it s actions , then . Responden t violate dsectio n 119.5(1 ) o f th e FARs , 1 4 C.F.R . §119.5(1 ) (^eel.D. , p . l ; Tr . 128) . Further , b y releasin g th e aircraf t afte r failin g t o maintai n i t unde r th e ESM , America nEagl e violate dFA Rsectio n 121.367(c) , 1 4 C.F.R . § 121.367(c) . Finally ,faihn g t o follow th e ES M constitute s aviolatio n o f FA Rsectio n 121.369(b) , 1 4 C.F.R . | § 121.369(b ) (seeTr . 129 ; I.D. , pp . 1-2) . . | Responden t

interpose dvariou s defense s t o th e charges , bu t non e o f the mS avai l it . is ; ' i j America nEagl e claime dtha t EAS I ha di n fac t

sterilize dth e potabl e wate r I ; system , althoug hno t

i naccordanc e wit hth e E Gterms . Th e carrie r asserte dtha t

it s | repai r statio n ha daccomplishe dmaintenanc e unde r th e "shorter, " pre-revisio n I versio n o f

th e wor k

car daddressin g th e tas k (Responden t

Brief, pp . 13-14) . Whil e I th e pre-revisio n versio n o f th e wor k

car dadmittedl y wa s n o longe r i n effec t a t th e I tim e o f th e repair . Respondent' s actio n i n choosin g i t ha dbee n understandable , | Responden t

claims . EASI' s we b sit e ha dconfuse dth e tw o versions . I Accomplishment , moreover , ha dbee n pursuan t t o ametho dtha t

ha dbee n vali d httl e mor e tha n amont hearlie r (I.D. , p . 3) . Thi s argumen t

i s rejected . Th e evidenc e fail s t o demonstrat e tha t EAS I accomplishe dsterilizatio n pe r th e "shorter " versio n o f tas k car d12-200-00 . Responden t

produce dn o suc hvahd , signe dtas k card . Neithe r

whe n th e carrie r

firs t informe dth e FA A o f

it s failur e t o abid e th e E Go n Februar y 1 , 2008 , no r whe n i t sen t th e complete dVDR Pt o th e agenc y o n Apri l 14 , 2008 , di di t provid e evidenc e tha t i t ha dperforme dth e pre-revisio n version . I t woul db e reasonabl e an dnatura l t o expec t America n Eagl e t o hav e submitte dpertinen t documentation , particularl y i n th e mor e comprehensiv e an dconsidere dVDR Pi t sen t i n April , bu t

th e carrie r ha dattache donl y unsigne dwor k cards . I n thes e circumstances . Respondent' s failur e t o attac hasigne dwor k car dsuggest s strongl y tha t th e underlyin g wor k

ha d na t bee n performed . Gnl y afte r th e agenc y mad e aforma l reques t - an dnearl y thre e month s afte r

th e Phas e l A chec k

—di dResponden t

provid e asigne dwor k card , an dtha t wa s fo r th e post-revisio n task . Anothe r indicatio n tha t

th e shor t

versio n ha dno t bee nperforme dstemme dfro mth e testimon y o f inspecto r

Stilwell . H e credibl y state dtha t

h e ha dbee n informe dtha t neithe r th e pre - no r

th e post-revisio n versio n o f

th e wor k

car dha dbee n performe d(I.D. , p . 6) . Whil e StUwell' s assertio n constitute s hearsay , I fin di t trustworth y an dgiv e i t credence . Agains t thi s background . Respondent' s joos/ ^ Ao c explanation s ar e suspect . I t stretche s credibilit y to o fa r t o endors e Respondent' s contentio n tha t th e signe dpost revisio n car d(proffere donl y afte r th e agency' s forma l inquiry ) show s tha t th e pre revisio n tas k

ha dbee naccomplished . No r ca n I discer n ho w th e carrier' s statemen t o n th e maintenanc e lo g tha t th e "la v sin k

wate r need s t o b e cleaned " shows , a s Responden t

suggests , tha t

som e kin do f

sterilizatio n ha dbee n performed , an dtha t th e notatio nsignale danee dfo r resterilizatio n pe r

th e EG. ^ Thi s interpretatio n i s strained . I t

i s no t supporte db y th e languag e i n th e maintenanc e log . Complainant' s assertio ntha t th e quote dlanguag e simpl y record s th e nee dt o steriliz e th e syste m- wit hth e necessar y impHcatio n tha t sterifizatio n ha dno t

bee n

^ Exh . C-16 ; Tr . 224-25 ; I.D. , p . 6 . A t the hearing th

e question aros e as t

o th e fma l wor di n th e quoted phrase . The partie s agreedb y communication datedMa

y 21 , 2010 , tha

t the wor dis , as statedin the text , "cleaned. "performe d- - i s fa r mor e persuasive. ^ Further , th e Phas e l A maste r recor dcar d cite db y Respondent , whic hnote dcompletio n o f wor k car d12-200-0 0 i n 1. 5 labo r hour s (Exh . C-7 ) - th e tim e estimate dfo r performanc e unde r

th e pre-revisio n wor k car d- wa s no t

attache dt o th e VDRP . Gn e woul dexpec t that , a s i n th e situatio n wit hth e tas k

cards , suppor t

fo r suc haclai mwoul dhav e bee n mad e whe n Responden t

submitte dth e VDR Po n Apri l 14 . Bu t th e car dwa s no t

sen t t o th e agenc y unti l som e tim e i nlat e Apri l (Exh . C-7 ; Tr . 102-05) . Th e evidenc e show s tha t EAS I o n Januar y 31 , 200 8 accomplishe donl y th e non-routin e wor k

card . I t fille dth e tan k

wit hwate r

unde r aprocedur e designe dt o tak e one-hal f

hou r (Tr . 67 , 76) . Respondent , I find , ha dfaile dt o accomplis han y sor t o f sterilizatio no f

th e potabl e wate r

reservoi r

prio r t o performin g th e tas k o n Februar y 12 , 2008 . No r wa s America nEagle' s deferra l pe r th e ME La n acceptabl e alternativ e t o performin g th e task . Deferra l simpl y wa s no t a n option . Th e ESM , whos e provision s govern , di dno t permi t deferra l o f

maintenanc e o f

th e aircraft' s potabl e wate r reservoi r

(Exh . C-l , p . 8) . Finally , 1 conside r

th e questio n o f

whethe r

i t wa s prope r

fo r th e agenc y t o rejec t Respondent' s VDR Pfiling . Thi s action , o f course , opene dth e doo r t o acivi l penalt y action , whil e acceptanc e o f th e filin g woul dhav e foreclose di t (^'eel.D. , p . 4 ; Tr . 82-83) . I fin dtha t th e agenc y exercise dlawfu l discretio n i n takin g thi s action . Preliminarily , I agre e wit hJudg e Benkin , wh o ha s discusse dthi s issue , tha t th e discretio n o f

a nadministrativ e agenc y i n decidin g whethe r t o initiat e a n enforcemen t

actio ngenerall y i s ver y broad , bu t no t absolute . Whe n th e FAA , a s here , ha s invite dentitie s subjec t t o it s jurisdictio n t o "confess " i n retur n fo r mor e favorabl e treatment , consideration s o f fairnes s an dhones t

dealin g sugges t

tha t th e agenc y shoul db e hel dt o it s en do f th e bargain . Thi s ide ai n fac t find s expressio ni n th e Administrativ e Procedur e Ac t ("APA") . Th e AP A prohibit s federa l agencie s suc h a s th e FA A fro mactin g i n amanne r tha t i s arbitrar y an dcapricious . ^ Applyin g thi s standar dt o th e cas e a t hand , I fin dtha t

i t wa s no t arbitrar y an dcapriciou s fo r th e FA A t o rejec t

America n Eagle' s VDR Ppetition . Th e agency' s opinio n tha t Respondent' s conduc t

i nfailin g t o tak e immediat e actio n onc e i t learne do f

th e situation , an di n postponin g th e require dfix , prevente dacceptanc e o f Respondent' s fifing , wa s reasonable . No r wa s i t arbitrar y o r

capriciou s fo r

th e agenc y t o conclud e tha t afinding o f

inadvertenc e wa s foreclose db y Respondent' s behavio r followin g it s discover y o f

EASI' s nonperformanc e (seel.D. , p . 5) . Al l othe r argument s mad e b y Responden t hav e bee n considere dan drejecte d withou t furthe r commen t

a s lackin g merit . Tr . 163-64 . Moreover, the maintenanc e lo g wa s not attachedt o the VDRP . Tr . 119-20 . ^ 5 U.S.C . §706(2)(A) . Se

e discussion pe

r Judg e Benki

n in Boston-Maine Airway s Corporation , Orde r Granting in Par

t an dDenying i

n Par t Complainant' s Motion fo

r Summar y Judgment , 220 8 W

L3485802 (August 8 , 2008) , pp . 2-4 .1 0

III . Penalt y Th e FA A seek s asubstantia l civi l penalt y i n th e amoun t o f $47,400 . I t

bear s th e burde n o f

provin g th e appropriatenes s o f thi s amount . Phillip s Buildin g Supply , FA A Grde r

No . 2000-2 0 (Augus t

11 , 2000) , p . 8 . I n suppor t

th e agenc y assert s tha t a n appropriat e sanctio n ca n b e derive d fro mth e FAA' s Sanctio nGuidanc e Table , whic hma y b e foun di n Appendi x B t o FA A Grde r No . 2150.3 B (Exh . C-15) . Th e Sanctio n Guidanc e Tabl e i s abasi s fo r settin g ou t th e sanctio npolic y tha t th e Administrato r

intend s t o establis hthroug hth e adjudicatio n o f

individua l cases . I t

reflect s th e Administrator' s genera l view s abou t th e civi l penalt y range s tha t ar e suitabl e fo r

differen t

type s o f

violations . Th e polic y i s no t binding . No r

doe s i t reflec t merel y afixedmathematica l computation . I t constitute s "usefu l guidance " i n th e exercis e o f th e Administrator' s broa ddiscretio n t o asses s acivi l penalty . Administrativ e la w judge s ("ALJs" ) ar e no t agenc y personne l an dtherefor e ar e no t expressl y require dt o follo w th e guidanc e o f Grde r No . 2150.3B . Th e guideline s nonetheles s mus t b e respecte da s a n expressio n o f agenc y sanctio n policy . Th e Administrato r

ha s asserte dth e powe r t o impos e th e agency' s sanctio n pohc y i f a n AL J assesse s acivi l penalt y tha t i s no t consisten t

wit hth e policy . Se e discussio n i n Folsom' s Ai r

Service , Inc. , FA A Grde r No . 2008-1 1 (Novembe r 6 , 2008) , pp . 12-14 ; Warhelow' s Ai r

Ventures , Inc. , FA A Grde r No . 2000- 3 (Februar y 3 , 2000) , p . 20 . Th e Sanctio nGuidanc e Tabl e contain s range s o f penalt y amount s deeme d appropriat e fo r

eac hcategor y o f

violation . Th e determinatio n o f penalt y als o consider s th e siz e o f

th e carrie r

and , i n thi s case , th e agency' s vie w tha t th e violation s wer e intentiona l an dno t inadvertent . Complainan t note s tha t

th e failur e t o correc t

spanne deleve ndays . Passenger s an dcre w di dno t hav e acces s t o sterilize dwate r

i n th e lavator y sin k

durin g thi s period . Thi s typ e o f noncomphance . Complainan t

argues , "demand s th e maximu msanction " (Complainant' s Brief, pp . 29-30) . Responden t

mad e n o argumen t

directl y o n thi s issue . I canno t endors e th e agency' s recommendation . Th e propose dfine simpl y i s disproportionat e t o th e offense . Ther e i s n o evidenc e suggestin g tha t th e matte r touche s o naircraf t

safety . I t

i s no t s o grav e a s that . No r di dRespondent' s inactio n caus e passenger s o r

cre w t o assum e a n unreasonabl e ris k t o healt han dsafety . Th e untreate dwate r

i nth e syste mha dbee n drained . Passenger s an dcre w simpl y wer e deprive do f

th e us e o f

th e lavator y sink . A secon dreaso n tha t I canno t

suppor t th e suggeste dassessmen t

i s becaus e Complainan t provide dn o mathematica l basi s fo r it . Th e agenc y di dno t

explai n specificall y ho w it s propose dpenalt y wa s derived . Perhap s th e derivatio n i s apparen t t o th e FAA , bu t

i t i s no t apparen t

t o me . I canno t agre e t o asses s th e amoun t urge dwithou t

supportin g evidenc e o f thi s nature . Complainan t

i s indee dcorrec t

tha t Respondent' s failur e t o perfor mth e prope r maintenanc e shoul dhav e bee n addresse da t th e carrier' s earhes t1 1

opportunity . Th e defec t shoul dhav e no t

hav e bee n allowe dt o linge r i n violatio no f th e aircraft' s ES M an dth e carrier' s CAM Pan do p specs . Bu t thos e consideration s fal l shor t

o f necessitatin g acivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t suggested . I fin dtha t

acivi l penalt y i n th e amoun t o f $20,00 0 wil l adequatel y punis h America n Eagl e fo r

it s failur e t o compl y wit hth e FAR s charge di n th e Complaint . Th e amoun t

wil l also , 1 find , suitabl y dete r Responden t

an dsimila r

entitie s fro m suc hviolation s i nth e future . I n vie w o f

th e foregoing , I fin dan dconclud e tha t Responden t

America n Eagl e Airlines , Inc . ha s violate d1 4 C.F.R . §§119.5(1) , 121.367(c) , an d121.369(b ) a s charge di n Complainant' s Complaint . I furthe r fin dan dconclud e tha t Responden t

i s liabl e fo r acivi l penalt y assessmen t i n th e amoun t

o f $20,000.' °



### lar d Cl^GoodwIr r ''Administrativ e La

wJudg e Attachmen t

- Servic e lis t

' ° Thi s decision ma

y b e appealedt

o the Administrato

r o f the FAA . The notic e o

f appea l must confor mt o section s 13.210 , 13.211(e) an d13.23 3 o f the Rule s o

f Practice , whic

hrequir e tha t anotic e o f appea l 1 ) b e filednot late r tha n1 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l fiv e day s i f mailed) fromthe servic e dat e o f thi s decision , an d2 ) be perfecte

dwit hawritte n brie f o r memorandu

mnot late r tha n 5 0 day s (plu s a

n additiona

l five , i f mailed ) fromthe servic e dat

e o f thi s decision . Th

e notic e o f appea l an dbrie f o r memorandu

mmust eithe r be a ) maile dt o the Federa

l Aviation Adminisfration , 800 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Washington , D C 20591 , Attn : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , o

r b ) delivered personall y o r viaexpeditedcourie

r servic e t o the Federa

l Aviation Administration , 600 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D.C . 20591 , Attn : Hearm g Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 . A cop

y o f the notic e o

f appea l an dbrie f o r memorandu

mals o must

b e sen t t o agenc y counsel . Servic e upo

n the presiding judg e i s optional .FA A Docke t No . CP09SW000 6 i (Civi l Penalty Action ) . t ' SERVIC ELIS T ORIGINA L& ON ECOP Y i i 

## h Federa l Aviatio nAdministratio n l i 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . | ? Washington , D.C . 2059 1 j | Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 | | Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 ' I ;

ON ECOP Y ? American Eagl e Airlines , Inc. , Responden t ; ATTN ; Pete r

Bowler , Presiden t 1700 W . 20 * Street , M D 120 0 ; : | P.O . Bo x 61252 7 1 DF WAirport , T X 75261-252 7 ; • ! Franci s C . Heil , Respondent' s Counse l ,; | American Airlines , Inc. , Legal Departmen t P.O . Bo x 619616 , Mai l Dro p 567 5 3 DF WAirport , T X 75261-961 6 TEL : 202-496-564 2 FAX : 202-496-566 0 Ren aM . Price , Complainant' s Counse l Safet y Enforcemen t

Branch , Offic e o f

th e Regional Counse l Southwes t Region , ASW-7E1 , RM P Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 260 1 MeachamBlvd. , Roo m66 3 For t Worth , T X 76137-000 7 TEL : 817-222-506 8 FAX : 817-222-5945/509 2 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e la w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Eas t Buildin g Groun dFloor , Roo mE12-32 0 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202- 3 66-512 1 FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service was b

y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e th e following address : Federa l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independenc e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington , D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearing Docke t Clerk, AGC-430 .